Historical analogies are deprecated, but…

BILL MOYERS: Now in a different world, at a different time, and with a different president, we face the prospect of enlarging a different war. But once again we’re fighting in remote provinces against an enemy who can bleed us slowly and wait us out, because he will still be there when we are gone.

Once again, we are caught between warring factions in a country where other foreign powers fail before us. Once again, every setback brings a call for more troops, although no one can say how long they will be there or what it means to win. Once again, the government we are trying to help is hopelessly corrupt and incompetent.

And once again, a President pushing for critical change at home is being pressured to stop dithering, be tough, show he’s got the guts, by sending young people seven thousand miles from home to fight and die, while their own country is coming apart.

And once again, the loudest case for enlarging the war is being made by those who will not have to fight it, who will be safely in their beds while the war grinds on. And once again, a small circle of advisers debates the course of action, but one man will make the decision.

We will never know what would have happened if Lyndon Johnson had said no to more war. We know what happened because he said yes.

This is officially an award-winning blog

HNN, Best group blog: "Witty and insightful, the Edge of the American West puts the group in group blog, with frequent contributions from an irreverent band.... Always entertaining, often enlightening, the blog features snazzy visuals—graphs, photos, videos—and zippy writing...."

21 comments

3. Professional soldiers are often very good at what they do, up until the moment they stop being good at it; as examples, consider George Armstrong Custer, Frederic Augustus Thesiger, and Oreste Baratieri.

Jack Shafer in Slate has the goods on Moyers as Johnson’s media thug. And when confronted on his work – which was truly Nixonian in scope (using the CIA to find gay Republicans in 1964, for instance, to counter the Jenkins scandal) – Moyers has no real reply. Moyers was pretty ruthless; in his memoir of reporting from Vietnam, Morley Safer writes about Moyers spreading rumors that he was gay, a communist, and worst of all: Canadian (all in service to Johnson’s White House – you see, Safer’s infamous Cam Ne piece, with the burning village, really bothered the President).

Perhaps Moyers might have mentioned in his summation that we should slander any reporter hurting America’s efforts in the war – something he enjoyed doing back then but conveniently forgets here.

It really drove me nuts to see his sanctimonious preaching during the Bush years. Not that he was wrong – in fact, I agreed with a lot of what he said. Rather, it was the fact that he absolutely knows how the White House operates and was “shocked, shocked!” to discover effective press management. Even friggin’ illegal wiretapping – he was involved it for LBJ!

The Moyers piece makes complete sense. Anyone whose day is ruined by this has a screw loose or is living in some alternative reality.

You want to get stuck a little deeper in Afghanistan in hopes of doing the victory dance thing? Well rent a theater and put on a show because that will be just as real. There is no victory to be had by the US in Afghanistan, although there may be the appearance of one after you have wasted a whole lot more blood and treasure.

And after this hypothetical “victory” what then? Know anything about the political realities on the ground in that country… the internecine tribal chess game… the age-old customs that are so ingrained no western ‘face-lift’ can possibly change the way they do business. The victory conceit is hokum. There can be no victory in Afghanistan without profound change and that can’t be wrought through military initiatives on the part of outside agents. Change will come… if and when it comes… on Afghani terms and on an Afghani schedule. Anything else is a chimera.

Moyers’ bio details, personal idiosyncrasies etc etc can easily be lampooned… whose can’t? But on this issue he speaks to truth and if it ruins your day you’re badly in need of a reality check.

I’m interested in the miscommunication between Ari and Schultz, and the accusation of me being a presentist (when all I was doing was examining Moyers’s biographical and historical record). It reminds me of the Keegan/David Irving thread earlier.

Here’s my question: How should we (as professional historians) respond when somebody who espouses *essentially* intolerable ideals, or has a severely compromised personal history (and involvement in the events described), actually produces excellent scholarship? I’m not talking Dunning School/racism stuff, because that all got re-examined decades later (not challenged in real time). Let’s say Moyers’s wrote an excellent book on the Vietnam-Afghanistan analogy he gives above – would we expect him to disclose his own role in promoting the Vietnam War and attacking the press?

Maybe Moyers did some questionable things when he worked at the White House, but he urged LBJ to avoid escalating the war. It reached the point where LBJ started to mock him “well here comes ‘Mr. Stop the Bombing.'” Moyers quit in late 1966 in part because he recognized that the war was a disaster. So I think he has real credibility here. Whether the Afghanistan-Vietnam analogy is a persuasive one is another matter.

PorJ says: “How should we (as professional historians) respond when somebody who espouses *essentially* intolerable ideals, or has a severely compromised personal history (and involvement in the events described), actually produces excellent scholarship?”

This is a very interesting question.

As one who believes that the human condition is inherently ‘schizophrenic’ i.e. the singular “I” we like to believe we possess is simply a delusion, I have every expectation that there will be many sides to even the best among us. We are hopelessly divided. Any forensic examination of the historical “greats” we now revere as a result of the writings left as testament, would probably reveal ‘sides’ that would damn the greats in the eyes of the current climate of of pc do’s and dont’s.

We are actors. Some can ‘manage’ their complexities in order to present a seemingly consistent and reliable voice. Slippage of course occurs and many have been caught out when an untethered “I” we normally keep under wraps gets free of the controls and does something that The Hollywood Reporter gets hold of – or even just a next door neighbor.

Maintaining a consistent and believable face is difficult especially for brilliant and complex individuals such as for example Bill Clinton who has struggled to rise above the various other little “I’s” in his make-up that operated more or less beneath the radar.

Widening the scope a little… should we damn the works of Picasso because he was a misogynist and the holder of some rather controversial views. Should the works of Dali be downgraded because he referred to himself as “the great masturbator”? If we were to apply a forensic moral/ethical examination of many of the historical greats we presently revere the majority would fail miserably.

The pc standards we demand these days exceed our capacity as humans to even begin to live up to them. Most of us lie and pretend most of time while deceiving ourselves that we are operating as whole unit. We present a consistent a face as we can, but in a pc climate such as this there is a cultural loss. Fear gnaws beneath the surface and the masking becomes a question of winning or losing. We lose our sense of humor. We judge. It get’s vicious and many great minds and great voices simply opt out. So we lose big time because we demand consistency, credibility, near-perfection from those we vote for, read and award. But really these judgment are bullshit because they are based on a lie – truth is we are all actors with something to hide.

I think we need to be more tolerant and accepting of inconsistencies, flaws, seeming-contradictions in the other and look instead for the quality of his/her struggle. And Moyers does try. Has tried. He put himself out there and undoubtedly encountered some of his own demons and inconsistencies in the process. Moreover, he has survived. So I will give kudos to the fighter who despite profound inconsistencies shows evidence of struggle. Does this diminish the quality of his scholarship? No not at all, in fact I think it enhances it. I would prefer to read a flawed and challenged man who endured and survived the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, than the writings of an armchair philosopher who plays the game just right but who has repressed or avoided his/her own inherent contradictions.

“America,” he said, “will lose the war. And Italy will win it.”
“America is the stongest and most prosperous nation on earth,” Nately informed him with lofty fervor and dignity. “And the American fighting man is second to none.”

“Exactly,” agreed the old man pleasantly, with a hint of taunting amusement. “Italy, on the other hand, is one of the least properous nations on earth. And the Italian fighting man is probably second to all. And that’s exactly why my country is doing so well in this war while your country is doing so poorly.”

“I’m sorry I laughed at you. But Italy was occupied by the Germans and is now being occupied by us. You don’t call that doing very well, do you?”

“But of course I do,” exclaimed the old man cheerfully. “The Germans are being driven out, and we’re still here. In a few years, you will be gone, too, and we will still be here. You see, Italy is really a very poor and weak country, and that’s what makes us so strong. Italian soldiers are not dying anymore. But American and German soldiers are. I call that doing extremely well. Yes, I’m quite certain Italy will survive this war and still be in existence long after your own country has been destroyed.”